Thursday, December 11, 2008

It's being reported that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is preparing to open a floodgate of Senate appointment before Christmas.

There are 18 vacancies in the 105-seat Senate and Harper will try to fill as many of those slots as quickly as possible in order to put them out of reach of a Liberal-NDP coalition.

Moves like these make it hard to believe that Harper was one of the original Reform Party Members of Parliament, a Party that had the creation of a Triple E Senate as one of its key principals. Though the Conservatives previously introduced moderate Senate Reform legislation, it died when Harper asked the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call the October 14, 2008 election. The 2008 Conservative election platform (pdf) stated that:

...Stephen Harper believe[s] that the current Senate must be either reformed or abolished. An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century.

Principals, promises to Canadians (and to God) aside, it would be an understandable political maneuver on Harper's part, as Liberal Senate-appointees currently number 58 to the Conservatives' 20, but it raises some serious questions about what other principals and promises Harper is willing to toss aside in the name of politics. It makes me struggle to see how Harper's power play politics differ from those of former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, whom some nicknamed the Friendly Dictator.It's likely the case that many Canadians didn't even notice, but provinces with current Senate vacancies include Newfoundland and Labrador (1), New Brunswick (2), Nova Scotia (3), Prince Edward Island (1), Quebec (4), Ontario (2), Yukon (1), Saskatchewan (1), British Columbia (3).

Will Canadians bare witness to a Chretien- or Pierre Trudeau-style series of appointments? Who would find themselves on Stephen Harper's Christmas Senate wish list? John Reynolds in British Columbia? Michel Fortier or Mario Dumont in Quebec? Doug Finley or Ernie Eves in Ontario? Bernard Lord in New Brunswick? Loyola Hearn in Newfoundland and Labrador? Or will Harper surprise Canadians by appointing a broad range of independent-thinkers with political inclinations?

"You complain about Harper doing the very same thing your party has done for decades. But now all of a sudden it's wrong??"

First, I'm not a member of any Federal Political Party.

Second, I agree with Harper's statement from the 2008 CPC platform about the Senate. In fact, one of the key reasons I don't support the Liberal Party of Canada is because of their stance on the Senate. By appointing Senators, Harper is showing that he's no different than past Liberal Prime Ministers like Chretien or Trudeau, who would happily make appointments to the unelected Senate. Elected it or abolish.

I think that a certain Anonymous commenter needs to take it upon themselves to learn how to think critically and transcend partisan politics.

Seriously.

Just because someone tends towards a particular party does not mean that they are absolutely complicit in becoming a mouthpiece for partisan politics. In fact, that's the exact opposite of what the party system *should* be doing.

Party discourses need criticism, and by taking advantage of senate appointments (yet again), Stephen Harper is contradicting his own party-line and election promises.

At least the Liberal Party comes out and admits they both support and stack the senate. However, they've obviously got partisan reasons for doing so, and this practice is immensely problematic.

Is it just me, or is Canada the last Dominion to do this? America got rid of theirs with the 17th amendment or so (uh, actually appointments were by the states and they varied; the 1858 Illinois Lincoln-Douglas showdown was an election, for instance). Australia and practically everyone else has changed to elections. Even Britain has approved the end of the House of Lords as a place for nobles and appointees.

This is even worse then the time you guys got rid of the awesome Governor General outfits! SCHREYER!

One of the 'E's of the Triple E Senante stands for equality. Harper may simply be trying to uphold that principle and prevent the 18 seats from all going to central Canada (wouldn't surprise me if this happened under the coalition).There is probably more of a political motivation at play here...but if this is even part of his motivation I would support it.

Anyone concerned with appointed senators vs elected ones need only read Senator Bert Brown's ill-informed partisan bullshit in the letters section of today's National Post to see that there is little difference in the quality of government we'll receive.

Harper never should have made Mr. Brown a Senator. Many of us in Alberta refused our ballots for, what seemed at the time, a pointless exercise that would never result in a real senator.

Not many people took Mr. Brown's candidacy seriously and now it is apparent what an utter partisan hack he is.

Seriously.. I just engaged a rabid federal Liberal on Canadian Cynic, and what I asked of him is exactly what you have acknowledged.. that wrong is just wrong.

Harper loses all credibility by making those appointments.. what Conservatives might gain in Senate support, they will lose in their convictions many times over.. either you are in agreement executive patronage appointments or you aren't.. as Conservatives following up on Adscam and the fiasco of the Trudeau and Chretien appointments.. we are supposed to be better.

I appreciate your acknoweldgement, in pointing out our (conservative) hypocrisy, also pointing out the fault of past Liberal governments..

As I posted in my blog today, as bloggers "we engage in honest and occasionally even heated debate.. but we don't lose sight of the reality that there are swine out there.. and if we're not careful, we'll be the ones responsible for putting them in our government."

The reason it's different is because Harper made a big deal about how the Liberals were unethical, liars, thieves, who put their party first, were arrogant, and had a sense of entitlement. Remember? He made a big deal about how he and his party were different.

And guess what? They're not.

That's the difference.

It would be like if Stephane Dion chumming around with Americans, or Jack Layton proposing business tax cuts, or Gilles Duceppe proposing cuts to arts and culture. It would be more wrong because they've been so critical of their opponents for those things, and talk constantly about being different.

THAT is why it is a big deal that Harper breaks his promises (even if "everyone does it").

The Senate should be elected not abolished. The regional balance the Senate brings could be valuable to Canadian democracy.

Appointed Senators are definitely a step backwards to this goal, however Harper's two Senate appointees so far have been either elected (Bert Brown) or have stepped down to run when asked to do so (Michael Fortier). There is then hope that Harper will be able to find 18 qualified, interested persons dedicated to that end when the timing is right.

Sometimes pragmatism trumps idealistic goals, at least in the short-term. Harper appointed Senators are unpalatable for all of the reasons mentioned above, but Senator May goes down far worse.

David Climenhaga over at St.Albert Diary ( davidclimenhaga.blogspot.com )notes that, "Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. As a result, he does not have the right to make appointments to the Senate." David goes on to cite a precedent when the GG refused to approve senate appointments.

I am just disappointed that Mr. Harper finally got the opportunity to do something about the Senate, but didn't take advantage of it. He introduced two bills in the House of Commons, but he didn't make either one of them a priority. He put more than 30 other bills ahead of them. It just wasn't a priority. He could have made history by finally doing something meaningful on Senate reform, but instead he let it slide. Now he has just plain given up.

appoint fortier? The man appointed to the senate to give montreal a seat at the cabinet table, who promised to run in an election and give up his senate seat?Oh, yes, him. He is no longer the Montreal representative in cabinet as he lots his cabinet post, but don't worry. As I recall, he hasn't given up his senate seat or salary yet.Reynolds is a gimme. Dumont is doubtful. How bout that swell guy Gurmant Grewal?

When you say the "end justifies the means" you are most likely using a poor translation of Machiavelli's famous line "si guarda al fine". A better translation is "one judges by the result".

I mentioned that I was disappointed that the PM was appointing Senators, but one judges by the result.

By appointing Senators that will at least be morally obligated (although certainly not constitutionally obligated) to run for there seats when/if the Upper Chamber becomes an elected body, Harper has moved incrementally towards an elected Senate.

If the Liberals or "the coalition" were to take power they would be well within their rights to fill the Senate. In fact doing so would be almost laudable considering the vacancy rate. It would be an unforgivable result for Conservatives and would certainly do less to move us closer to an elected Senate. One judges by the result.

To suggest that the Liberals recent electoral strife is due to appointed Senators is to grossly misread the political landscape. A pair of weak ineffectual leaders, leading a fractured party would be a better start. A complete collapse of the Quebec wing after adscam means less seats in vote rich Quebec. A resurgent unified national alternative to the Liberals in Ontario has weakened that stronghold. And a reckless environmental platform as well as general contempt for the West has hurt the party west of Ontario.

Elected Senators is certainly not the ideal result for Conservatives, especially of the old Reform type, but one judges by the result and at this juncture, it is the best result.

subscribe.

informer.

The opinions expressed on this blog represent my own and not those of my employer or any organization I may be affiliated with.In addition, my thoughts and opinions change from time to time. I consider this a necessary consequence of having an open mind. This blog is intended to provide a semi-permanent point in time snapshot and manifestation of the various ideas running around my brain, and as such any thoughts and opinions expressed within out-of-date posts may not the same, nor even similar, to those I may hold today.

twitter.

recent posts.

about the author.

Who is Dave Cournoyer? I am a writer, blogger, communicator, occasional media pundit, political watcher, & proud life-long Albertan. I studied Political Science at the University of Alberta and have served as Vice-President (External) of the U of A Students' Union, Chair of the Council of Alberta University Students, and communications coordinator for Alberta's official opposition party.